Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1018
Location: US
Warp wrote:
In order to understand what's happening, even if you know it's a TAS, you need to read some background info on what's happening and how it was achieved.
This part of your statement is true. To understand specifically HOW the gamepad input reaches the end-game scene, you need to know the technical background.
The video alone, all in itself, offers not much entertainment without that technical background info....
This is the part that I don't agree with you, because this part is not true for everyone. It may be true for you, but it's not for everyone.
Some people can find entertainment in a sub 1 second video that jumps straight to the credits simply by knowing the result was done with gamepad inputs. They don't need to know any further/deeper details on how it was accomplished beyond knowing it was gamepad input. In other words, they don't need to know the technical background to find it entertaining.
In this case, however, any possible entertainment comes from the background info, not from what's happening on screen during the run.
What this argument doesn't allow, is for others to find the complete lack of anything happening on screen while still reaching the credits to be entertaining. For some people it is exactly that aspect that they find entertaining....the fact that nothing visible happens but the credits are reached anyway via gamepad input.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1018
Location: US
Yea...that's a pretty good summary.
There are exceptions to the "doing nothing for a long time will not cause any sort of penalty or game over in any situation" generalization; but when present, the time limits allotted to accomplish a particular goal are typically very generous allowing the game play to stay relatively slow-paced.
I'm sure the features of Adventure games, which games qualify, and which ones don't belong could be discussed ad infinitum. And there will always be some subjectivity to it.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1018
Location: US
Warp wrote:
So, if the definition of "adventure game" is "progress is based primarily on the collection/usage of specific inventory items to solve a specific intellectual challenges/puzzles; hand/eye coordination and/or reflexive skills are rarely a main aspect of these games", could someone give examples of very representative and archetypal adventure games, other than point-and-click ones?
I mentioned Grim Fandango earlier. It (at least originally) wasn't point & click; though that option for input has been added in the re-release of the game.
Another example is Dreamfall: The Longest Journey.
Obviously any text parser based yet graphically presented game where mouse input isn't present (many older Sierra games) wouldn't be 'point & click' but would follow similar mechanics.
I'm sure there are probably others, but I can't think of any more specifics off the top of my head. The bulk of archetypal adventure games do fall into the 'point & click' category.
For reference, here's a list of the top 100 Adventure games (at least according to that website). The bulk are point click.
That list does include games like Portal (which I've already mentioned is more of a 3d puzzle than an adventure IMO).
Games in the Myst series are also mentioned in that list. I'm not sure how to categorize them as they fall between 3d Puzzle and Adventure to me. They typically have little inventory management and are more a series of strictly intellectual puzzles. But if you consider information/clues presented in-game (like the various alphabets/numbering systems) as a kind of of intellectual inventory item that must be used elsewhere in the game world, they show some similarity to adventure games. This is often the case in the Myst games as the information is often obscure and some distance from where it is utilized; forcing the player to figure out what the information means first then use it (this again is like Adventure games). Contrast this to 3d puzzle/Portal-type games, where information is often presented directly to you, you know what it means almost immediately, and often use the information immediately as well.
Categorizing games is truly a difficult task...especially as developers find more and more ways to blend genres.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1018
Location: US
Warp wrote:
Let's admit it, this run isn't very "entertaining" to someone who has no knowledge of what's happening behind the scenes, ie. without having to read a long (highly technical) explanation of how it was done. You can't just give a video of this run to someone to watch and expect it to be entertaining, because it essentially just shows the ending screen of the game.
In general, I disagree with this statement.
It's true, that in a presentation devoid of any background information, this video doesn't offer much entertaining. But that's simply because (in that scenario) there is a complete lack of understanding of what the video even is. Many things outside of the video game world that are presented as entertainment aren't entertaining until you understand WHAT the entertainment is supposed to be in the first place. Sports are a great example. When someone doesn't even understand what the sport is, it's hard to be entertained. But when they do understand what it is (even if they don't know every individual rule in the rule book) it becomes more entertaining.
So someone who doesn't understand that this is a TAS can't be entertained by the TAS aspect of the video. Side Note: Some people may still be entertained even given the lack of knowledge by simply watching the end scene itself (for example, people who've never personally beaten the game before nor seen the end any other way).
Here's an important consideration: Since when do we intentionally obscure/omit the fact (for any TAS we publish) that the video is indeed a TAS?
We don't! We blatantly broadcast that our publications are TASes and are meant to be understood as such; because it's the primary background information necessary to even understand a TAS video, let alone be entertained by one.
Claiming that someone can't find this movie entertaining because they don't know the background is a moot argument because we always present the background information with our publications; both the acknowledgement that the video itself is a TAS along with the published links to the submission notes.
Besides, it is absolutely possible for someone to find a video like this entertaining even if they've only being given the limited background information of "This game was beaten using gamepad inputs to get to the end scene as fast as possible."
So long as this brief preface is given, it's possible for a person to be entertained by the resulting video while still knowing nothing about the detailed technical aspect of how the TAS was made. Heck, as long as they know it's gamepad input that's causing the game to end so quickly, they don't even necessarily need to know it's TAS input to perceive the video as an entertaining result of gamepad input.
It's therefore not necessary to thoroughly read and understand the submission notes and comprehend the intricacies of how it works to find entertainment in this video. They key to a video like this being potentially entertaining rests on the platform that the person watching understands that gamepad inputs made it happen.
Would this video be entertaining without that preface: Probably not.
Can this video be entertaining once one has the simple knowledge that gamepad inputs made it happen?: Yes.
I'm not suggesting that these argument should make everyone find this entertaining. I'm simply showing how it's possible for some people to find this video entertaining with only a very superficial comprehension of what makes the video happen the way it does.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1018
Location: US
I see your points regarding Zelda being a primarily metroidvania game series based on my above distinctions; I don't disagree with those perspectives.
Warp wrote:
I also think this classification principle would make The Talos Principle and adventure game. Maybe it is?
I'm not personally familiar with The Talos Principle, but I watched a youtube clip of the game. It strikes me as more of a Portal type game; or a series of environment manipulation puzzles.
Perhaps that's too nitpicky of a distinction from an adventure game for some people.
I guess the distinction I see between Portal/The Talos Principle type games and adventure games again comes down to item use.
Management/use of multiple inventory items to solve challenges (especially when there's nothing in the game that teaches what each item is for) = adventure game
Manipulation/management of environmental objects (especially when the use of the items is obvious or deliberately taught by the game) = Portal type sequential puzzler. Another example of this type of puzzler (also 1st person) would be Quantum Conundrum
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1018
Location: US
In general an "Adventure Game" is one who's primary mechanic of driving game progress involves collecting inventory items from various locations which are then used in other locations to solve some puzzle that is preventing progress in the game. Adventure games almost always contain some degree of mental/intellectual challenge in solving these puzzles through the inventory/puzzle based primary mechanic. As others have mentioned, the various Sierra "Quest" games are good examples.
In regards to free-roaming/non-linear play: This should not be a requirement for something to be deemed an adventure game. While some areas in adventure games may be freely roamed, many adventure games do follow a linear progression through the game. In these cases, backtracking either becomes pointless or impossible depending on how the game is coded. Again the "Quest" games are good examples of this forced progression/linearity within an adventure game.
EDIT: Another quick thought on backtracking/non-linearity. If the backtracking is only present to allow for secondary objectives that aren't necessary to complete the game, this level of backtracking alone isn't enough to qualify a game as an "Adventure" game. : END EDIT
Regarding RPGs as adventure games. The key differentiation here is in the primary mechanic that drives progression of the game. IMO Adventure games, have the inventory focused puzzle solving as their primary driving mechanic, where RPGs have leveling-up and character development as their primary driving mechanic. There are some games that appear mix these two genre's together (example: the Quest for Glory series), but even these tend to focus more heavily to one or the other. The Quest for Glory series does indeed use various character stats similar to RPGs, but it still drives the game primarily via inventory based puzzle solving. The character stats/classes only really serve to determine which path(s) a character is able to take in solving the progression of puzzles.
MetroidVania games as adventure games? While these games often have a similar situation where progress is limited until a certain item is acquired, the difference between these and adventure games lies in the use of the item. Items collected in adventure games tend to allow progression by enabling the player to solve one (or in some cases a small number of) specific puzzle(s) using that item. Items collected in Metroidvania games by contrast are more akin to power-ups that tend to allow for infinite uses to allow a more widespread exploration of the game-world, but not necessary allow solution of one (or a few) particular puzzles. Another key difference is that Metroidvania games quite often include developing skills of action/platforming as a primary means of progressing through the game. Adventure games rarely require a significant level of reflex based (hand/eye coordination type) gaming skills, but instead tend to focus on challenging the minds ability to think through a solution to a problem.
Regarding open-world platformer/action games like Assassin's Creed, GTA, etc: These games rarely have the 'get object in one place and use it in another to solve a puzzle' as the primary mechanic that drives the game, IMO. They are instead more non-linear disjointed objectives/quests that can be completed however the player chooses. In many cases, these games contain MANY objectives/side quests that are neither necessary nor required to progress through the game. Further, even when inventory items can be collected in these various disjointed objectives, they are either power-up in nature (similar to Metroidvania games) or they are rarely required (or even able) to be used in a different objective/side quest. In these games, the progression through the main game is usually accomplished by completion of a series of objectives that themselves are unconnected and in some cases un-ordered. Contrast this to adventure games that require collecting an item very early in the game in one location only to hold it in inventory nearly the entire game before it's proper use becomes apparent in a wholly different location where the action using the object is finally performed.
Comparison to classic text adventure games: Another way to help identify an adventure game is to compare the driving mechanic of the game to classic text adventure games from the 70's and 80's. These games usually followed the 'get inventory item/use inventory item' mechanic necessary to progress through the game. The difference between these and more modern adventure games was simply in input method (text vs. point/click vs. console controller) and game display (text vs. graphical); but the primary mechanic of solving puzzles with inventory items remains.
For example compare two shining examples of the Adventure genre: the early Infocom text based Zork series and Lucas Arts' Grim Fandango which is graphical and (originally) had a tank movement based control scheme.
TL:DR When differentiation between game genres is considered, the genre distinction should be based on the primary mechanic of game progression.
Adventure: Progress is based primarily on the collection/usage of specific inventory items to solve a specific intellectual challenges/puzzles. Hand/eye coordination and/or reflexive skills are rarely a main aspect of these games.
Action/platforming: - Progress based primarily on the act of movement through the game world, especially focusing on rewarding development of improved hand/eye coordination skills.
RPG: Progress based primarily on developing character skills/traits to be able to conquer tougher opponents as the game progresses.
MetroidVania: Progress based on finding and utilizing power-up based improvements to a character.
Open-World/Objective Progression: Progress is based on the completion of a predefined group of objectives which themselves are often unconnected to each other and can often be completed in a variety of orders.
Strategy (Real time or turn-based) Progress is often linked to wise resource management.
These categorizations aren't meant to suggest that a game can only belong to one genre. But what is identifiable as a game's primary progression mechanic should be the overriding factor in determining a game's primary genre.
Unfortunately, some games are enough of a blend of these categories that it makes it hard to determine the overriding primary mechanic. For example the Zelda series is a combination of Action, Metroidvania, and adventure genres.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1018
Location: US
Though PAL may have been the standard, even PAL only releases often worked perfectly well on NTSC systems.
While they may have had slightly faster music and frame rates due to the region difference, the software otherwise functioned exactly as intended.
This was common even on real hardware.
I myself had an NTSC C64. I also had numerous games that I've since learned were PAL only releases; yet they worked perfectly fine on my system. There was nothing about them that would have suggested they weren't designed for the system I was playing them on. To put it briefly, my system ran the software as intended; albeit slightly faster than it would have run the same software on a PAL system.
When comparing how quickly C64 systems (of either region) run a particular software, it's akin to the comparing the difference in speed of two IBM compatible systems (of different clock speed) running the same software. For example: Space Quest for DOS runs faster on a 20mHz CPU than it does on a 10mHz CPU, but otherwise the software is run identically in function. Similarly, an NTSC C64 runs a particular title faster than a PAL C64 unless the software itself was coded to only work/sync properly on a PAL system...then the software doesn't work properly on the NTSC system. In those cases of special coding where the game doesn't work properly on the wrong region system it should be played in the appropriate mode that actually runs the game....this is no different from what it would have taken to play that game from real media on real hardware.
EDIT: Before someone presents the argument that we've limited PC speed for TASing...The speed restrictions we've implemented for PC system TASes are based on speeds of release era, not speeds of release region. Both PAL and NTSC C64s existed in the same era.:END EDIT
Requiring PAL only releases to be run in PAL mode when it would work normally in NTSC mode as well, is an arbitrary restriction that even the real hardware doesn't have.
There was no form of hardware based region lock on the C64 limiting what software was able to run on any C64 system. If a particular game/software was locked to a specific release region it was locked by specific coding in the software itself.
TL:DR For these reasons, the rules as currently written are appropriate in allowing any game to be run in NTSC mode so long as glitches aren't introduced by playing in the "wrong" region.
Essentially, if a game plays properly (in whatever mode you've chosen) without introducing glitches not present in the other mode, it's working properly. Sped up or slowed down music does not constitute a unique glitch to one mode over the other, it's simply a result of the difference in hardware processing speeds (both CPU and screen refresh). Thus it's fair to play the game in NTSC mode for the benefit of faster gameplay.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1018
Location: US
Though I personally see this type of DPCM abuse ACE as different to other ACE which involves game elements, others here have stated that they feel ACE is ACE regardless of how it's completed.
Regardless of which of these perspectives one has, the following holds.
As mentioned a few posts back:
Here, we have become so powerful that we don't even NEED gameplay to finish the game when the developers expected us to go through gameplay.
This refers to the fact that we have managed to achieve ACE using a different strategy (though still input based) that accomplishes the exact same goal as any other ACE TAS. Putting it simply, the goal is gaining complete control.
Having this submission's form of input used to achieve ACE banned from Vault presents the argument that all forms of ACE should be banned because the achievement of complete control is the same regardless of input strategy.
On the same token if any ACE run using valid input is allowed in vault, all ACE runs using valid input must be allowed in Vault.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1018
Location: US
Regarding the PAL/NTSC debate: Something that needs to be considered is that real software from either region often worked on real hardware of the other region WITHOUT any necessary fixes/modifications.
If playing a PAL game in NTSC mode yields a faster framerate/music but otherwise presents no new errors/glitches, playing that game on an NTSC system is something that would have been possible on actual systems. It should therefore be allowed in an emulated environment too.
Theoretically, the faster pace of play would make many of these (if not all) such games harder on an NTSC system due to requiring faster reflexes to accomplish the same results at the higher framerate. So if anything, the current policy off allowing PAL games in NTSC mode allows for beating the game in a way that would have been 'harder' for a casual gamer on real hardware.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1018
Location: US
hopper wrote:
In the first 19 levels, you miss one of the last two ducks. You mentioned optimizing the spawning of the second duck while you're killing the first. Would it make any difference to kill the second duck and let the first one fly away? I was thinking about how the second controller can be used to control the duck in Game A, which could help it fly away faster if your intention is to miss. That doesn't work in Game B, but I still wondered if it would, nevertheless, be faster to let the first duck make some progress towards the top of the screen while you're running yourself out of ammo and killing the second duck.
My thoughts without testing specifically regarding killing the 2nd duck:
1) Waiting for the 2nd duck to appear before firing the first shot.
Waiting to shoot the second duck as it appears would be a delay of 1-3 frames for the 1st shot itself (even when the timer can be manipulated to be 0, the 2nd duck won't release until the frame after the first duck). Then the 2nd shot/1st miss followed by triggering the fly away on the 3rd shot would take as much time as it does now. While this allows the 1st duck to fly during those 1-3 frames before the 2nd duck arrives, due to variability in flight direction it isn't guaranteed to save the 1-3 frames lost to waiting for the first shot. This may be viable.
2) Shooting 2 shots before the 1st duck appears.
Having only one shot remaining once the ducks arrive would minimize the time between the arrival of the 2nd duck and "fly away". However...
When the gun is shot before/between ducks, there's a slight pause in the duck release countdown. Delaying the countdown before any duck appears is pointless as it delays duck arrival and wouldn't allow either duck to gain much altitude after arrival before the "fly away" was triggered. Therefore, shooting before the 1st duck arrives will likely lengthen the total time.
3) Shooting ASAP and missing the 1st duck when it arrives, then hitting the 2nd duck with either the 2nd or 3rd shot. (This is what I assume you're suggesting.)
Oddly, the delay between how quickly two shots can be performed is longer if you miss a duck than it is if you hit a duck. So missing both the first and second shots adds one extra frame before the last shot can be taken and trigger the fly away. Therefore the 3rd shot needs to be one of the misses to minimize time before that shot can be taken.
Whether the first or second shot is the hit, the time to get to the third shot should be equal. So if the first duck is missed, it may indeed have time to get higher on the screen before the 2nd shot can kill the 2nd duck.
Based on these thoughts; either option 1 or 3 may be viable, but would likely require testing on a level-by level basis. Unfortunately, changing any individual level would likely affect RNG and require complete redo of everything from that point onward.
Still, I may do some testing on this thought. Thanks for the idea.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1018
Location: US
I find this run mildly entertaining, but not exceptionally.
This is one of those games in which I would rather work on the actual TAS process than watch the final product.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1018
Location: US
Maru wrote:
What do we consider as gameplay?which guideline better constitutes gameplay?Does this TAS have any gameplay improvements compared to the published run?
In my opinion, these three questions have related answers.
I feel the first two questions can be answered together:
As already mentioned we typically time things from power-on for our TASes as opposed to whatever start point is used for RTA runs. (We also end our TAS timing at different points than RTA runners, but that's a bit beside the point) This standardizes the TASing approach. RTA rules, while possibly similar to our own, have rarely dictated how we assess and judge our movies here.
With power-on being our start point, it's my opinion that any inputs after power-on should be considered part of 'gameplay' for a TAS even when they occur on (or even before) the title screen. Consider games in which RNG can be manipulated by either delaying title screen input or pressing buttons that don't appear to have an effect on the title screen itself. Changing these title screen inputs changes the outcome of the TAS itself and therefore is part of the TAS gameplay.
To answer the the third question: Yes it is a gameplay improvement. Since I consider title screen (and pre-title screen inputs) as part of gameplay, this submission is indeed a gameplay improvement over the current publication.
If this submission is accepted, should it obsolete the published run based on the fact that the published run was thoroughly outperformed in terms of time?
It doesn't necessarily have to. As the current publication is currently sitting in moon tier, it could remain there as 'fastest non-DPCM abuse' run; though it would have to lose it's fastest completion flag (which would go to this submission).
If by chance this submission is deemed moon worthy, they could exist side by side. If it's not moon worthy, it can land in vault and the other run can stay in moons without obsoletion being necessary.
Is this type of game end glitch significantly different from the published game end glitch TAS to warrant the creation of a new category?
Ultimately what needs decided is if there is enough difference between non-ACE game end glitches (I don't even know if these exist), standard ACE, and DPCM-bug abuse ACE.
In my opinion, the DPCM ACE is unique enough to be a separate category:
Standard ACE mainly abuses RAM management through manipulation of in-game features (i.e. positioning turtle shells) to enable ACE which then yields the desired effect.
DPCM ACE (at least of this type) mainly abuses the game's software workaround of a hardware bug and will likely always be on the sub-frame scale.
Since the ending is almost instant, do viewers see some similarity or resemblance to entering a password in-game to skip to the credits?
Resembling using a password or code isn't banned, just the actual use of codes/passwords. If an unintended input method is found to glitch into state that resembles/activates something in the game which can also be done by code/password it is allowed so long as the code/password itself isn't utilized.
So the viewer's perspective of this 'looking like cheating' doesn't matter on whether or not it should be acceptable. As long as the submission obeys the rules, it should be acceptable.
These are my thoughts on your questions. I'm curious to see other's perspectives.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1018
Location: US
This submission is an interesting case.
Is viewing the result entertaining? In my opinion, No. As mentioned above, it's little different than simply viewing a video of end credits.
Is the accomplishment interesting/impressive? ABSOLUTELY!
Should it be published? In my opinion, yes, it should.
Where should it be published? Given that it's not entertaining to watch, moons probably isn't a good location; leaving vault as the only other landing place as this is the fastest known completion of this title. This is where the case becomes interesting.... The accomplishment of this run could be argued as Star tier quality from a technical aspect, but the lack of anything visually entertaining argues against Stars. Therefore, Vault is the only appropriate publication tier based on current rules.
That said, I expect argument against accepting DPCM glitch abuse into Vault.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1018
Location: US
While I understand the inherent value of an RTA rules restricted TAS for RTA speedrunners, I don't see value in having them submitted/published on this site along side unrestricted TASes. The major purpose of TASvideos is publishing superhuman play. Limiting something to only what a human might be able to accomplish (mostly) defeats the purpose of tool assistance in the first place.
Typically, the only time arbitrarily restricted TASes are acceptable is when the restriction provides for some interesting or entertaining feature in the resulting movie that isn't seen in an unrestricted TAS. Only then are the limited TASes considered for publication; and in those cases, the ultimate decision is still entertainment driven. For example: Zelda II has this run and this run which both restrict actions used in the fastest completion of the game. Each of these offer visibly unique entertainment value not seen in the fastest completion.
In my opinion...As this TAS neither beats a current record nor offers much unique in regards to entertainment value compared to the current unrestricted TAS, there was no reason to present this TAS as a submission with arbitrary restrictions. An upload to userfiles linked in the SMB game thread would have sufficed as a way to present this RTA viable TAS.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1018
Location: US
SaxxonPike wrote:
Some interesting info about T64 files, which are apparently unrelated to tapes whatsoever and are a relic of really old emulators:
https://www.lemon64.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=71839
Now that I know they aren't related to tapes (and even have "1541 file types" on them!) I could probably just stick the contained files into a disk image the same way we do with PRGs and be done with them.
More technical info on .t64
http://unusedino.de/ec64/technical/formats/t64.htmlEDIT:
Regarding pulling the data and making .d64 files: While this is doable with various modern utilities, it would create a new .d64 image.
As others must be able to find/obtain a matching image for a TAS to be accepted, this conversion is a very grey area for TASing purposes.
Thankfully, I've personally run into very few games available ONLY in .t64 format.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1018
Location: US
Could the All Bosses branch be standardized to mean 'All accessible Bosses'?
If a game has different bosses (or boss sequences) for different player characters, a run of this branch would be defined as all bosses accessible by that character.
If it's not possible to access a boss that is only available to a different character, it would not be required for an 'All Boss' run based on the character chosen. Perhaps in these such cases the branch should actually be "All Bosses - <Character>".
If a glitched method of accessing a particular boss (who is not normally available to the player's character) is found for a game, that boss then becomes a required component for an 'All Boss' run by the character in question; and a longer run that includes the boss would obsolete a shorter run where the boss is not fought.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1018
Location: US
Please don't be offended by my not finding this very entertaining. Entertainment is a subjective evaluation. Different people just find different things entertaining.
I do find the run interesting from a TASing perspective , just not entertaining to watch.
Bottom line, I'm thrilled to have more people here willing to try TASing DOS games via JPC-rr. That alone gives you bonus points in my book.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1018
Location: US
The C64 keyboard layout doesn't match a modern keyboard. You'll have to check your bizhawk controller/input settings to see what's mapped to what.
As far as C64 layout is concerned, quotation marks are (shift+2) and the asterisk is it's own key.
If you open the virtual pad, the entire C64 keyboard is there. You can press what you need there instead of trying to use your keyboard.
Beware though, If I remember correctly, Ultima requires keyboard inputs to play, so you'll need to figure out your mapping to effectively play casually. For TASing all keys are available in TAStudio.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1018
Location: US
The game image file determines which media format your game image is.
If your loading syntax doesn't match your media format, the game won't load properly.
Based on the picture you shared above, I'd guess you've got a disk format image. Loading syntax for that would be
LOAD"*",8
This is all explained in the guide I linked.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1018
Location: US
Looks like you're trying to use TAPE syntax for a game image that isn't tape format.
Read this to help you get started. http://tasvideos.org/Bizhawk/C64.html
Also you can pull up the virtual pad under Tools>Virtual Pad to have a C64 keyboard layout available on your desktop.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1018
Location: US
fsvgm777 wrote:
Now that's interesting. It seems the disk releases that are floating around are basically "bad dumps" (be it cracked or non-cracked).
BTW, comparing against the only speedrun on SRC (at around 2:12), it seems you had really horrible RNG in that specific room, as it's basically taking forever for the teleporter to turn green.
Abstaining from voting.
Yea I have recently acquired a couple disk images (cracked) that do have that room correct, but I have still been unable to verify that the game was officially released on disk media.
The only cases I can make for a disk released are this ebay listing and this webpage.
I don't know that I trust either of them. Specifically for the ebay listing, it doesn't look like official packaging nor does it show the 'front' of the disk itself making me think it's simply a cracked version or custom media conversion.
As far as RNG being a pain...that's addressed in the submission notes. But yes they were a major problem with running the game. I'm still studying the issue.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1018
Location: US
YAY! More DOS tasers!
I had (and despised) this game as a kid (though I'm not sure where I got it). I had Skunny Kart too, actually.
Didn't watch the whole thing...couldn't force myself too. But what I watched appeared ok from an optimization standpoint. Not very entertaining in my opinion.
